Category talk:Parents with Deceased Children
I've got everyone I can think of for now, but I feel like I must be missing a bunch. I added Hogram because he had lost a son--in bitching out the Soviets for encouraging him to send his grandson into harm's way, he explains that his firstborn son had died and his second was next in line. Turtle Fan 02:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC) You beat me to Arthur McGregor. I just realized I'd forgotten him. Turtle Fan 02:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Did Philip II lose a son? Or did he just lock him up for being batshit insane? Turtle Fan 03:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC) OTL/Fictional split? This is a good sized category, and normally, we'd look at doing OTL/Fictional works splits at about this point. However, as I was reviewing the category, I realized there aren't any historical characters who are in this category purely on the strength of an HT work, i.e. historical child died earlier than in OTL, and was the only child to die, or a fictional child died of a historical parent died. There are a couple of borderline cases I can see: Tad Lincoln died earlier in 191 than in OTL, but Abraham and Mary had already lost two children in OTL, and would be in this category anyway. Similarly, Joe Steele lost two kids, but Joseph Stalin also lost his eldest son (although it would be overstating things to say Stalin grieved for Yakov). Contrast this with the Widowed People category, where a few historical figures lot their spouses in an HT work earlier than in OTL, or had a different spouse, etc. A split then would be more for consistency's sake than for any greater reason. Is that good enough? Should we wait and see if, for example, HT kills off Margaret Truman in BA? TR (talk) 22:26, May 6, 2015 (UTC) :I think in this case consistency for the sake of consistency isn't reason enough. We can review it again in future. ML4E (talk) 18:03, May 9, 2015 (UTC) :I'm inclined to agree. If we had even one historical who was in here for purely fictional reasons I'd say go for it, but since we don't, let's not. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:33, May 10, 2015 (UTC) Review So my kidding on the square has come to fruition. Margaret Truman is dead. Shall we go ahead and split now? And while we are at it, should be consider a somewhat more accurate title? Stalin didn't seem to care much that his eldest son died, for example. TR (talk) 23:04, June 21, 2017 (UTC) TR (talk) 17:19, June 23, 2017 (UTC) :I don't have any objections to making the split. I also agree that the name "Grieving Parents" is somewhat misleading, especially in cases where the parent killed the child but I can't think of an alternative name. ML4E (talk) 18:11, June 23, 2017 (UTC) ::English needs to come up with a new word, or steal one from another language. I am given to understand that the Chinese have a word, shidu, that is slowly gaining some traction outside of China, but it applies specifically to parents who have lost their only child. Even if we wanted to participate in the great English language tradition of stealing from other languages, it would still be insufficient for our purposes. ::::If we (as in the Anglosphere, that is, not as in the three of us) do wind up stealing that one, I imagine we'd broaden the meaning a bit. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:40, June 26, 2017 (UTC) ::::Also, I'm surprised that the need to coin a term never came up when the Bible was being translated into English. The deaths of children (real or apparent) are major events on which at least a dozen well-known Bible stories turn. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:43, June 26, 2017 (UTC) :::True. I still don't have any suggestions. ML4E (talk) 16:46, June 24, 2017 (UTC) ::Infanticides should probably be in their own category. TR (talk) 18:37, June 23, 2017 (UTC) :::I was thinking of the exception in the last sentence giving Josef Goebbels as an example. ML4E (talk) 16:46, June 24, 2017 (UTC) ::::Ok, well, we'll leave the name be for now, then. If we can justify Parents who Committed Infanticide, I'll create it. ::::Perversely, given Goebbels' motivation, he probably did "grieve" in his own twisted way. Asshole. TR (talk) 17:06, June 24, 2017 (UTC) If we're willing to sacrifice brevity for precision, we could go with a descriptive category name, like "Parents of Deceased Children" or "Parents Who Outlived Their Children." :Autofilling does allow with for precision while removing the downside of length. TR (talk) 03:35, June 26, 2017 (UTC) ::Yeah, I'm okay with the trade-off. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:36, June 27, 2017 (UTC) ::Seems okay with me too. Of the two, I prefer the first: "Parents of Deceased Children" since the second seems to imply they outlived all their children rather than only some. Would that cover miscarriages too? I seem to recall that FO mentions the Finches had the only child since Mrs. Finch had a series of miscarriages that could kill her if she became pregnant again. ML4E (talk) 16:13, June 27, 2017 (UTC) :::Re: miscarriages--IME, that's a pretty subjective thing. I've known women who had miscarriages who were quite philosophical about it, and others who felt as if they had indeed lost their child and mourned. Factors would include at what time in the pregnancy the miscarriage took place and the perceived likelihood of whether there could be another successful pregnancy. :::I guess my answer would be to say "no", as most of the miscarriages HT has written about tend to be of the former camp than the latter. They don't perceive themselves as parents of deceased children, they had pregnancies that didn't "take". TR (talk) 18:01, June 27, 2017 (UTC)